HTTP Working Group M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft Akamai
Intended status: Standards Track P. McManus
Expires: June 17, 2016 Mozilla
J. Reschke
greenbytes
December 15, 2015
HTTP Alternative Services
draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10
Abstract
This document specifies "Alternative Services" for HTTP, which allow
an origin's resources to be authoritatively available at a separate
network location, possibly accessed with a different protocol
configuration.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group
mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
.
Working Group information can be found at
and ;
source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
.
The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix A.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2016.
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Alternative Services Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Host Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Alternative Service Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Requiring Server Name Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Using Alternative Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. The Alt-Svc HTTP Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Caching Alt-Svc Header Field Values . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. The ALTSVC HTTP/2 Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. The Alt-Used HTTP Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. The 421 Misdirected Request HTTP Status Code . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Header Field Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. The ALTSVC HTTP/2 Frame Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3. Alt-Svc Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.1. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.2. Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Changing Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Changing Hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.3. Changing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.4. Tracking Clients Using Alternative Services . . . . . . . 18
9.5. Confusion Regarding Request Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.1. Since draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-05 . . . . . . . . 20
A.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
1. Introduction
HTTP [RFC7230] conflates the identification of resources with their
location. In other words, "http://" (and "https://") URIs are used
to both name and find things to interact with.
In some cases, it is desirable to separate identification and
location in HTTP; keeping the same identifier for a resource, but
interacting with it at a different location on the network.
For example:
o An origin server might wish to redirect a client to a different
server when it is under load, or it has found a server in a
location that is more local to the client.
o An origin server might wish to offer access to its resources using
a new protocol (such as HTTP/2, see [RFC7540]) or one using
improved security (such as Transport Layer Security (TLS), see
[RFC5246]).
o An origin server might wish to segment its clients into groups of
capabilities, such as those supporting Server Name Indication
(SNI, see Section 3 of [RFC6066]) and those not supporting it, for
operational purposes.
This specification defines a new concept in HTTP, "Alternative
Services", that allows an origin server to nominate additional means
of interacting with it on the network. It defines a general
framework for this in Section 2, along with specific mechanisms for
advertising their existence using HTTP header fields (Section 3) or
HTTP/2 frames (Section 4), plus a way to indicate that an alternative
service was used (Section 5).
It also endorses the status code 421 (Misdirected Request)
(Section 6) that origin servers (or their nominated alternatives) can
use to indicate that they are not authoritative for a given origin,
in cases where the wrong location is used.
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document uses the Augmented BNF defined in [RFC5234] along with
the "#rule" extension defined in Section 7 of [RFC7230]. The rules
below are defined in [RFC5234], [RFC7230], and [RFC7234]:
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
DIGIT =
OWS =
delta-seconds =
port =
quoted-string =
token =
uri-host =
2. Alternative Services Concepts
This specification defines a new concept in HTTP, the "Alternative
Service". When an origin (see [RFC6454]) has resources that are
accessible through a different protocol / host / port combination, it
is said to have an alternative service available.
An alternative service can be used to interact with the resources on
an origin server at a separate location on the network, possibly
using a different protocol configuration. Alternative services are
considered authoritative for an origin's resources, in the sense of
[RFC7230], Section 9.1.
For example, an origin:
("http", "www.example.com", "80")
might declare that its resources are also accessible at the
alternative service:
("h2", "new.example.com", "81")
By their nature, alternative services are explicitly at the
granularity of an origin; i.e., they cannot be selectively applied to
resources within an origin.
Alternative services do not replace or change the origin for any
given resource; in general, they are not visible to the software
"above" the access mechanism. The alternative service is essentially
alternative routing information that can also be used to reach the
origin in the same way that DNS CNAME or SRV records define routing
information at the name resolution level. Each origin maps to a set
of these routes -- the default route is derived from the origin
itself and the other routes are introduced based on alternative-
service information.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the first member of an
alternative service tuple is different from the "scheme" component of
an origin; it is more specific, identifying not only the major
version of the protocol being used, but potentially communication
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
options for that protocol.
This means that clients using an alternative service can change the
host, port and protocol that they are using to fetch resources, but
these changes MUST NOT be propagated to the application that is using
HTTP; from that standpoint, the URI being accessed and all
information derived from it (scheme, host, port) are the same as
before.
Importantly, this includes its security context; in particular, when
TLS [RFC5246] is used to authenticate, the alternative service will
need to present a certificate for the origin's host name, not that of
the alternative. Likewise, the Host header field ([RFC7230], Section
5.4) is still derived from the origin, not the alternative service
(just as it would if a CNAME were being used).
The changes MAY, however, be made visible in debugging tools,
consoles, etc.
Formally, an alternative service is identified by the combination of:
o An Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) protocol name, as
per [RFC7301]
o A host, as per [RFC3986], Section 3.2.2
o A port, as per [RFC3986], Section 3.2.3
The ALPN protocol name is used to identify the application protocol
or suite of protocols used by the alternative service. Note that for
the purpose of this specification, an ALPN protocol name implicitly
includes TLS in the suite of protocols it identifies, unless
specified otherwise in its definition. In particular, the ALPN name
"http/1.1", registered by Section 6 of [RFC7301], identifies HTTP/1.1
over TLS.
Additionally, each alternative service MUST have:
o A freshness lifetime, expressed in seconds; see Section 2.2
There are many ways that a client could discover the alternative
service(s) associated with an origin. This document describes two
such mechanisms: the "Alt-Svc" HTTP header field (Section 3) and the
"ALTSVC" HTTP/2 frame type (Section 4).
The remainder of this section describes requirements that are common
to alternative services, regardless of how they are discovered.
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
2.1. Host Authentication
Clients MUST NOT use alternative services with a host that is
different than the origin's without strong server authentication;
this mitigates the attack described in Section 9.2. One way to
achieve this is for the alternative to use TLS with a certificate
that is valid for that origin.
For example, if the origin's host is "www.example.com" and an
alternative is offered on "other.example.com" with the "h2" protocol,
and the certificate offered is valid for "www.example.com", the
client can use the alternative. However, if "other.example.com" is
offered with the "h2c" protocol, the client cannot use it, because
there is no mechanism in that protocol to establish strong server
authentication.
2.2. Alternative Service Caching
Mechanisms for discovering alternative services also associate a
freshness lifetime with them; for example, the Alt-Svc header field
uses the "ma" parameter.
Clients can choose to use an alternative service instead of the
origin at any time when it is considered fresh; see Section 2.4 for
specific recommendations.
Clients with existing connections to an alternative service do not
need to stop using it when its freshness lifetime ends; i.e., the
caching mechanism is intended for limiting how long an alternative
service can be used for establishing new connections, not limiting
the use of existing ones.
Alternative services are fully authoritative for the origin in
question, including the ability to clear or update cached alternative
service entries, extend freshness lifetimes, and any other authority
the origin server would have.
When alternative services are used to send a client to the most
optimal server, a change in network configuration can result in
cached values becoming suboptimal. Therefore, clients SHOULD remove
from cache all alternative services that lack the "persist" flag with
the value "1" when they detect such a change (when information about
network state is available).
2.3. Requiring Server Name Indication
A client MUST only use a TLS-based alternative service if the client
also supports TLS Server Name Indication (SNI). This supports the
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
conservation of IP addresses on the alternative service host.
Note that the SNI information provided in TLS by the client will be
that of the origin, not the alternative (as will the Host HTTP header
field value).
2.4. Using Alternative Services
By their nature, alternative services are OPTIONAL: clients do not
need to use them. However, it is advantageous for clients to behave
in a predictable way when they are used by servers (e.g., for load
balancing).
Therefore, if a client becomes aware of an alternative service, the
client SHOULD use that alternative service for all requests to the
associated origin as soon as it is available, provided the
alternative service information is fresh (Section 2.2) and the
security properties of the alternative service protocol are
desirable, as compared to the existing connection. A viable
alternative service is then treated in every way as the origin; this
includes the ability to advertise alternative services.
If a client becomes aware of multiple alternative services, it MAY
choose the most suitable according to its own criteria (again,
keeping security properties in mind). For example, an origin might
advertise multiple alternative services to notify clients of support
for multiple versions of HTTP.
A client configured to use a proxy for a given request SHOULD NOT
directly connect to an alternative service for this request, but
instead route it through that proxy.
When a client uses an alternative service for a request, it can
indicate this to the server using the Alt-Used header field
(Section 5).
The client does not need to block requests on any existing
connection; it can be used until the alternative connection is
established. However, if the security properties of the existing
connection are weak (e.g. cleartext HTTP/1.1) then it might make
sense to block until the new connection is fully available in order
to avoid information leakage.
Furthermore, if the connection to the alternative service fails or is
unresponsive, the client MAY fall back to using the origin or another
alternative service. Note, however, that this could be the basis of
a downgrade attack, thus losing any enhanced security properties of
the alternative service. If the connection to the alternative
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
service does not negotiate the expected protocol (for example, ALPN
fails to negotiate h2, or an Upgrade request to h2c is not accepted),
the connection to the alternative service MUST be considered to have
failed.
3. The Alt-Svc HTTP Header Field
An HTTP(S) origin server can advertise the availability of
alternative services to clients by adding an Alt-Svc header field to
responses.
Alt-Svc = clear / 1#alt-value
clear = %x63.6C.65.61.72; "clear", case-sensitive
alt-value = alternative *( OWS ";" OWS parameter )
alternative = protocol-id "=" alt-authority
protocol-id = token ; percent-encoded ALPN protocol name
alt-authority = quoted-string ; containing [ uri-host ] ":" port
parameter = token "=" ( token / quoted-string )
The field value consists either of a list of values, each of which
indicating one alternative service, or the keyword "clear".
A field value containing the special value "clear" indicates that the
origin requests all alternatives for that origin to be invalidated
(including those specified in the same response, in case of an
invalid reply containing both "clear" and alternative services).
ALPN protocol names are octet sequences with no additional
constraints on format. Octets not allowed in tokens ([RFC7230],
Section 3.2.6) MUST be percent-encoded as per Section 2.1 of
[RFC3986]. Consequently, the octet representing the percent
character "%" (hex 25) MUST be percent-encoded as well.
In order to have precisely one way to represent any ALPN protocol
name, the following additional constraints apply:
1. Octets in the ALPN protocol name MUST NOT be percent-encoded if
they are valid token characters except "%", and
2. When using percent-encoding, uppercase hex digits MUST be used.
With these constraints, recipients can apply simple string comparison
to match protocol identifiers.
The "alt-authority" component consists of an OPTIONAL uri-host
("host" in Section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986]), a colon (":"), and a port
number.
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
For example:
Alt-Svc: h2=":8000"
This indicates the "h2" protocol ([RFC7540]) on the same host using
the indicated port 8000.
An example involving a change of host:
Alt-Svc: h2="new.example.org:80"
This indicates the "h2" protocol on the host "new.example.org",
running on port 80. Note that the "quoted-string" syntax needs to be
used because ":" is not an allowed character in "token".
Examples for protocol name escaping:
+--------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| ALPN protocol name | protocol-id | Note |
+--------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| h2 | h2 | No escaping needed |
+--------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| w=x:y#z | w%3Dx%3Ay#z | "=" and ":" escaped |
+--------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| x%y | x%25y | "%" needs escaping |
+--------------------+-------------+---------------------+
Alt-Svc MAY occur in any HTTP response message, regardless of the
status code. Note that recipients of Alt-Svc are free to ignore the
header field (and indeed need to in some situations; see Sections 2.1
and 6).
The Alt-Svc field value can have multiple values:
Alt-Svc: h2c=":8000", h2=":443"
When multiple values are present, the order of the values reflects
the server's preference (with the first value being the most
preferred alternative).
The value(s) advertised by Alt-Svc can be used by clients to open a
new connection to an alternative service. Subsequent requests can
start using this new connection immediately, or can continue using
the existing connection while the new connection is created.
When using HTTP/2 ([RFC7540]), servers SHOULD instead send an ALTSVC
frame (Section 4). A single ALTSVC frame can be sent for a
connection; a new frame is not needed for every request. Note that,
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
despite this recommendation, Alt-Svc header fields remain valid in
responses delivered over HTTP/2.
Each "alt-value" is followed by an OPTIONAL semicolon-separated list
of additional parameters, each such "parameter" comprising a name and
a value.
This specification defines two parameters: "ma" and "persist",
defined in Section 3.1. Unknown parameters MUST be ignored, that is
the values (alt-value) they appear in MUST be processed as if the
unknown parameter was not present.
New parameters can be defined in extension specifications (see
Section 7.3 for registration details).
Note that all field elements that allow "quoted-string" syntax MUST
be processed as per Section 3.2.6 of [RFC7230].
3.1. Caching Alt-Svc Header Field Values
When an alternative service is advertised using Alt-Svc, it is
considered fresh for 24 hours from generation of the message. This
can be modified with the 'ma' (max-age) parameter.
Syntax:
ma = delta-seconds; see [RFC7234], Section 1.2.1
The delta-seconds value indicates the number of seconds since the
response was generated the alternative service is considered fresh
for.
Alt-Svc: h2=":443"; ma=3600
See Section 4.2.3 of [RFC7234] for details of determining response
age.
For example, a response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Cache-Control: max-age=600
Age: 30
Alt-Svc: h2c=":8000"; ma=60
indicates that an alternative service is available and usable for the
next 60 seconds. However, the response has already been cached for
30 seconds (as per the Age header field value), so therefore the
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
alternative service is only fresh for the 30 seconds from when this
response was received, minus estimated transit time.
Note that the freshness lifetime for HTTP caching (here, 600 seconds)
does not affect caching of Alt-Svc values.
When an Alt-Svc response header field is received from an origin, its
value invalidates and replaces all cached alternative services for
that origin.
By default, cached alternative services will be cleared when the
client detects a network change. Alternative services that are
intended to be longer-lived (e.g., those that are not specific to the
client access network) can carry the "persist" parameter with a value
"1" as a hint that the service is potentially useful beyond a network
configuration change.
Syntax:
persist = 1DIGIT
For example:
Alt-Svc: h2=":443"; ma=2592000; persist=1
This specification only a defines a single value for "persist";
others can be defined in future specifications. Clients MUST ignore
"persist" parameters with unknown values.
See Section 2.2 for general requirements on caching alternative
services.
4. The ALTSVC HTTP/2 Frame
The ALTSVC HTTP/2 frame ([RFC7540], Section 4) advertises the
availability of an alternative service to an HTTP/2 client.
The ALTSVC frame is a non-critical extension to HTTP/2. Endpoints
that do not support this frame can safely ignore it.
An ALTSVC frame from a server to a client on a stream other than
stream 0 indicates that the conveyed alternative service is
associated with the origin of that stream.
An ALTSVC frame from a server to a client on stream 0 indicates that
the conveyed alternative service is associated with the origin
contained in the Origin field of the frame. An association with an
origin that the client does not consider authoritative for the
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
current connection MUST be ignored.
The ALTSVC frame type is 0xa (decimal 10).
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Origin-Len (16) | Origin? (*) ...
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Alt-Svc-Field-Value (*) ...
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
ALTSVC Frame Payload
The ALTSVC frame contains the following fields:
Origin-Len: An unsigned, 16-bit integer indicating the length, in
octets, of the Origin field.
Origin: An OPTIONAL sequence of characters containing the ASCII
serialization of an origin ([RFC6454], Section 6.2) that the
alternative service is applicable to.
Alt-Svc-Field-Value: A sequence of octets (length determined by
subtracting the length of all preceding fields from the frame
length) containing a value identical to the Alt-Svc field value
defined in Section 3 (ABNF production "Alt-Svc").
The ALTSVC frame does not define any flags.
The ALTSVC frame is intended for receipt by clients; a server that
receives an ALTSVC frame can safely ignore it.
An ALTSVC frame on stream 0 with empty (length 0) "Origin"
information is invalid and MUST be ignored. An ALTSVC frame on a
stream other than stream 0 containing non-empty "Origin" information
is invalid and MUST be ignored.
The ALTSVC frame is processed hop-by-hop. An intermediary MUST NOT
forward ALTSVC frames, though it can use the information contained in
ALTSVC frames in forming new ALTSVC frames to send to its own
clients.
Receiving an ALTSVC frame is semantically equivalent to receiving an
Alt-Svc header field. As a result, the ALTSVC frame causes
alternative services for the corresponding origin to be replaced.
Note that it would be unwise to mix the use of Alt-Svc header fields
with the use of ALTSVC frames, as the sequence of receipt might be
hard to predict.
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
5. The Alt-Used HTTP Header Field
The Alt-Used header field is used in requests to indicate the
identity of the alternative service in use, just as the Host header
field (Section 5.4 of [RFC7230]) identifies the host and port of the
origin.
Alt-Used = uri-host [ ":" port ]
Alt-Used is intended to allow alternative services to detect loops,
differentiate traffic for purposes of load balancing, and generally
to ensure that it is possible to identify the intended destination of
traffic, since introducing this information after a protocol is in
use has proven to be problematic.
When using an alternative service, clients SHOULD include an Alt-Used
header field in all requests.
For example:
GET /thing HTTP/1.1
Host: origin.example.com
Alt-Used: alternate.example.net
6. The 421 Misdirected Request HTTP Status Code
The 421 (Misdirected Request) status code is defined in Section 9.1.2
of [RFC7540] to indicate that the current server instance is not
authoritative for the requested resource. This can be used to
indicate that an alternative service is not authoritative; see
Section 2).
Clients receiving 421 (Misdirected Request) from an alternative
service MUST remove the corresponding entry from its alternative
service cache (see Section 2.2) for that origin. Regardless of the
idempotency of the request method, they MAY retry the request, either
at another alternative server, or at the origin.
An Alt-Svc header field in a 421 (Misdirected Request) response MUST
be ignored.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Header Field Registrations
HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers"
registry maintained at
.
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
This document defines the following HTTP header fields, so their
associated registry entries shall be added according to the permanent
registrations below (see [BCP90]):
+-------------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Header Field Name | Protocol | Status | Reference |
+-------------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Alt-Svc | http | standard | Section 3 |
| Alt-Used | http | standard | Section 5 |
+-------------------+----------+----------+-----------+
The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet
Engineering Task Force".
7.2. The ALTSVC HTTP/2 Frame Type
This document registers the ALTSVC frame type in the HTTP/2 Frame
Types registry ([RFC7540], Section 11.2).
Frame Type: ALTSVC
Code: 0xa
Specification: Section 4 of this document
7.3. Alt-Svc Parameter Registry
The HTTP Alt-Svc Parameter Registry defines the name space for
parameters. It will be created and maintained at (the suggested URI)
.
7.3.1. Procedure
A registration MUST include the following fields:
o Parameter Name
o Pointer to specification text
Values to be added to this name space require Expert Review (see
[RFC5226], Section 4.1).
7.3.2. Registrations
The HTTP Alt-Svc Parameter Registry is to be populated with the
registrations below:
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
+-------------------+-------------+
| Alt-Svc Parameter | Reference |
+-------------------+-------------+
| ma | Section 3.1 |
| persist | Section 3.1 |
+-------------------+-------------+
8. Internationalization Considerations
An internationalized domain name that appears in either the header
field (Section 3) or the HTTP/2 frame (Section 4) MUST be expressed
using A-labels ([RFC5890], Section 2.3.2.1).
9. Security Considerations
9.1. Changing Ports
Using an alternative service implies accessing an origin's resources
on an alternative port, at a minimum. An attacker that can inject
alternative services and listen at the advertised port is therefore
able to hijack an origin. On certain servers, it is normal for users
to be able to control some personal pages available on a shared port,
and also to accept to requests on less-privileged ports.
For example, an attacker that can add HTTP response header fields to
some pages can redirect traffic for an entire origin to a different
port on the same host using the Alt-Svc header field; if that port is
under the attacker's control, they can thus masquerade as the HTTP
server.
On servers, this risk can be reduced by restricting the ability to
advertise alternative services, and restricting who can open a port
for listening on that host. Clients can reduce this risk by imposing
stronger requirements (e.g. strong authentication) when moving from
System Ports to User or Dynamic Ports, or from User Ports to Dynamic
Ports, as defined in Section 6 of [RFC6335].
It is always valid for a client to ignore an alternative service
advertisement which does not meet its implementation-specific
security requirements. Servers can increase the likelihood of
clients using the alternative service by providing strong
authentication even when not required.
9.2. Changing Hosts
When the host is changed due to the use of an alternative service, it
presents an opportunity for attackers to hijack communication to an
origin.
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
For example, if an attacker can convince a user agent to send all
traffic for "innocent.example.org" to "evil.example.com" by
successfully associating it as an alternative service, they can
masquerade as that origin. This can be done locally (see mitigations
in Section 9.1) or remotely (e.g., by an intermediary as a man-in-
the-middle attack).
This is the reason for the requirement in Section 2.1 that any
alternative service with a host different from the origin's be
strongly authenticated with the origin's identity; i.e., presenting a
certificate for the origin proves that the alternative service is
authorized to serve traffic for the origin.
However, this authorization is only as strong as the method used to
authenticate the alternative service. In particular, there are well-
known exploits to make an attacker's certificate appear as
legitimate.
Alternative services could be used to persist such an attack; for
example, an intermediary could man-in-the-middle TLS-protected
communication to a target, and then direct all traffic to an
alternative service with a large freshness lifetime, so that the user
agent still directs traffic to the attacker even when not using the
intermediary.
Implementations MUST perform any certificate-pinning validation (e.g.
[RFC7469]) on alternative services just as they would on direct
connections to the origin. Implementations might also choose to add
other requirements around which certificates are acceptable for
alternative services.
9.3. Changing Protocols
When the ALPN protocol is changed due to the use of an alternative
service, the security properties of the new connection to the origin
can be different from that of the "normal" connection to the origin,
because the protocol identifier itself implies this.
For example, if an "https://" URI has a protocol advertised that does
not use some form of end-to-end encryption (most likely, TLS), it
violates the expectations for security that the URI scheme implies.
Therefore, clients cannot blindly use alternative services, but
instead evaluate the option(s) presented to assure that security
requirements and expectations (of specifications, implementations and
end users) are met.
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
9.4. Tracking Clients Using Alternative Services
Choosing an alternative service implies connecting to a new, server-
supplied host name. By using many different (potentially unique)
host names, servers could conceivably track client requests. Such
tracking could follow users across multiple networks, when the
"persist" flag is used.
Clients concerned by the additional fingerprinting can choose to
ignore alternative service advertisements.
In a user agent, any alternative service information MUST be removed
when origin-specific data is cleared (for instance, when cookies are
cleared).
9.5. Confusion Regarding Request Scheme
Some server-side HTTP applications make assumptions about security
based upon connection context; for example, equating being served
upon port 443 with the use of an "https://" URI (and the various
security properties that implies).
This affects not only the security properties of the connection
itself, but also the state of the client at the other end of it; for
example, a Web browser treats "https://" URIs differently than
"http://" URIs in many ways, not just for purposes of protocol
handling.
Since one of the uses of Alternative Services is to allow a
connection to be migrated to a different protocol and port, these
applications can become confused about the security properties of a
given connection, sending information (e.g., cookies, content) that
is intended for a secure context (e.g., an "https://" URI) to a
client that is not treating it as one.
This risk can be mitigated in servers by using the URI scheme
explicitly carried by the protocol (e.g., ":scheme" in HTTP/2 or the
"absolute form" of the request target in HTTP/1.1) as an indication
of security context, instead of other connection properties
([RFC7540], Section 8.1.2.3 and [RFC7230], Section 5.3.2).
When the protocol does not explicitly carry the scheme (e.g., as is
usually the case for HTTP/1.1 over TLS, servers can, mitigate this
risk by either assuming that all requests have an insecure context,
or by refraining from advertising alternative services for insecure
schemes (such as HTTP).
10. References
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5234, January 2008,
.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
.
[RFC6066] Eastlake, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions:
Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, DOI 10.17487/RFC6066,
January 2011, .
[RFC6454] Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011,
.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
.
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and S. Emile,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
July 2014, .
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol version 2", RFC 7540, DOI 10.17487/
RFC7540, May 2015,
.
10.2. Informative References
[BCP90] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
September 2004, .
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5246, August 2008,
.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", RFC 6335,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
.
[RFC7469] Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning
Extension for HTTP", RFC 7469, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469,
April 2015, .
Appendix A. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
A.1. Since draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-05
This is the first version after adoption of
draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-05 as Working Group work item. It
only contains editorial changes.
A.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-00
Selected 421 as proposed status code for "Not Authoritative".
Changed header field syntax to use percent-encoding of ALPN protocol
names ().
A.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-01
Updated HTTP/1.1 references.
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
Renamed "Service" to "Alt-Svc-Used" and reduced information to a flag
to address fingerprinting concerns
().
Note that ALTSVC frame is preferred to Alt-Svc header field
().
Incorporate ALTSRV frame
().
Moved definition of status code 421 to HTTP/2.
Partly resolved .
A.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-02
Updated ALPN reference.
Resolved .
A.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-03
Renamed "Alt-Svc-Used" to "Alt-Used"
().
Clarify ALTSVC Origin information requirements
().
Remove/tune language with respect to tracking risks (see
).
A.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-04
Mention tracking by alt-svc host name in Security Considerations
().
"421 (Not Authoritative)" -> "421 (Misdirected Request)".
Allow the frame to carry multiple indicator and use the same payload
formats for both
().
A.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-05
Go back to specifying the origin in Alt-Used, but make it a "SHOULD"
().
Restore Origin field in ALT-SVC frame
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
().
A.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-06
Disallow use of alternative services when the protocol might not
carry the scheme
().
Align opp-sec and alt-svc
().
alt svc frame on pushed (even and non-0) frame
().
"browser" -> "user agent"
().
ABNF for "parameter"
().
Updated HTTP/2 reference.
A.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-07
Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation
().
Unexpected Alt-Svc frames
().
Associating Alt-Svc header with an origin
().
ALPN identifiers in Alt-Svc
().
Number of alternate services used
().
Proxy and .pac interaction
().
Need to define extensibility for alt-svc parameters
().
Persistence of alternates across network changes
().
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
Alt-Svc header with 421 status
().
Incorporate several editorial improvements suggested by Mike Bishop
(,
).
Alt-Svc response header field in HTTP/2 frame
().
A.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-08
Remove left over text about ext-params, applying to an earlier
version of Alt-Used (see
).
Conflicts between Alt-Svc and ALPN
().
Elevation of privilege
().
Alternates of alternates
().
Alt-Svc and Cert Pinning
().
Using alt-svc on localhost (no change to spec, see
).
IANA procedure for alt-svc parameters
().
Alt-svc from https (1.1) to https (1.1)
().
Alt-svc vs the ability to convey the scheme inside the protocol
().
Reconciling MAY/can vs. SHOULD
().
Typo in alt-svc caching example
().
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft HTTP Alternative Services December 2015
A.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-09
Editorial improvements
(,
,
,
,
,
,
,
).
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Adam Langley, Bence Beky, Eliot Lear, Erik Nygren, Guy
Podjarny, Herve Ruellan, Lucas Pardue, Martin Thomson, Matthew
Kerwin, Mike Bishop, Paul Hoffman, Richard Barnes, Richard Bradbury,
Stephen Farrell, Stephen Ludin, and Will Chan for their feedback and
suggestions.
The Alt-Svc header field was influenced by the design of the
Alternate-Protocol header field in SPDY.
Authors' Addresses
Mark Nottingham
Akamai
EMail: mnot@mnot.net
URI: https://www.mnot.net/
Patrick McManus
Mozilla
EMail: mcmanus@ducksong.com
URI: https://mozillians.org/u/pmcmanus/
Julian F. Reschke
greenbytes GmbH
EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
URI: https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
Nottingham, et al. Expires June 17, 2016 [Page 24]